From conception to implementation
A joint document
eHealth in Wound Care
S 2 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
© EWMA 2015
All rights reserved. No reproduction, transmission or copying of this publication is allowed without written permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the European Wound Management Association (EWMA) or in accordance with the relevant copyright legislation.
Although the editor, MA Healthcare Ltd. and EWMA have taken great care to ensure accuracy, neither MA Healthcare Ltd. nor EWMA will be liable for any errors of omission or inaccuracies in this publication.
Published on behalf of EWMA by MA Healthcare Ltd.Publisher: Anthony Kerr Editor: Rachel Webb Designer: Milly McCulloch Published by: MA Healthcare Ltd, St Jude’s Church, Dulwich Road, London, SE24 0PB, UKTel: +44 (0)20 7738 5454 Email: [email protected] Web: www.markallengroup.com
Zena Moore1 (Editor), PhD, MSc, FFNMRCSI, PG Dip, Dip Management, RGN, Professor, Head of School, Previous President
of the European Wound Management Association
Donna Angel2, RN, BN, Post Grad Dip (Clin Spec), MSc, Nurse Practitioner, Secretary of the Australian Wound Management
Association
Julie Bjerregaard3, Cand.Mag., MPH student
Tom O’Connor1, EdD, MSc (Advanced Nursing), PG Dip ED., RGN, RNT, Deputy Head of School/Director of Academic
Affairs, Senior Lecturer
William McGuiness4, PhD, MSN, Dip T, B Ed, Associate Professor, Previous President of the Australian Wound Management
Association
Knut Kröger5, MD, Director, Vice President of the Initiative Chronic Wounds e.V., Germany
Benjamin Schnack Brandt Rasmussen6, MD, PhD student
Knud Bonnet Yderstræde6, MD, PhD, associate professor, Consultant Medical Endocrinology and Internal Medicine
1. School of Nursing & Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland
2. Royal Perth Hospital, 197 Wellington Street, Perth WA 6000, Australia
3. The European Wound Management Association, Nordre Fasanvej 113, Frederiksberg, Denmark
4. Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, ClaytonVIC 3168, Australia
5. Department of Angiology, HELIOS Klinikum Krefeld, Lutherplatz 40, 47805 Krefeld, Germany
6. Odense University Hospital, Region of Southern Denmark, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000 Odense C
The authors would like to thank the following people for their valuable input to this document:
Kristian Kidholm, Region of Southern Denmark, for consultancy related to MAST and use of the model illustration in the
document.
Stephan Schug and Diane Whitehouse, The European Health Telematics Association (EHTEL), for review of the final
document.
The document is published as a deliverable for the United4Health project, www.united4health.eu, which is partially funded
under the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme
by the European Commission.
Corresponding author: Zena Moore, [email protected]
The article should be referenced as: Moore Z et al, eHealth in wound care – overview and key is-sues to consider before
implementation, Published in Journal of Wound Care, 2015, 24, 5 S1–S44.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3
ContentsExecutive summary 4
Abbreviations 5
1 Background and aim of the document 6
2 Terminology 8
3 The model for assessment of telemedicine (MAST) - evaluation of telemedical solutions 10
Adopting MAST to ensure comparable studies 10
4 Literature review 14Introduction 14Search strategy 14Synthesis 18 Type and geographical location 18 Health-care setting 18 Year of publication 18 Type of wound involved in study 18 Participants and sample sizes 19 eHealth solutions 19 Aims of the reviewed studies 19 Nature of outcome measures and relationship to mast 19 Actual outcome synthesis 20 MAST D1: Health problem and character of application 20 MAST D2: Safety 21 MAST D3: Clinical effectiveness 21 MAST D4: Patient perspectives 22 MAST D5: Economical aspects 22 MAST D6: Organisational aspects 23 MAST D7: Socio-cultural, ethical and legal aspects 23Conclusion 23
5 Barriers and facilitators for eHealth 25
The patients 25 Replacing face-to-face contact with patients 25
The attitude of the patients 26 Patient data security 27The health-care practitioners 27 Clear instructions and training for clinical staff 27 Role of the champion 28 Access to specialised services 28The services 29 User interface 29 System reliability 29 Cost-effectiveness analysis 30Summary 30
6 Road map for implementation in clinical practice 32
Circle 1: Outer circle 32 Step 1: System model 32 Step 2: Mast evaluation 33 Step 3: Funding and reimbursement aspects 33Circle 2: Middle circle 33 Step 4: Champions: experts and local 33Circle 3: Inner circle 33 Step 5: Technical aspects 33 Step 6: Safety aspects 33 Step 7: Adjustments according to care pathways 34 Step 8: Education 34
7 Conclusion 35
8 References 36
Appendix 1: Literature review – search strategy and literature overview 40
Search methods for identification of studies 40Search strategies 40Data collection results and analysis 40
S 4 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Executive summary
PurposeThis document aims to provide wound care
clinicians with a rapid and structured overview of
the key issues related to use of eHealth applications
(telemedicine and telehealth) within wound care.
This includes:
• An overview of terminology and available
literature
• Guidance on the methodology for evaluation of
eHealth solutions
• An introduction to and discussion of the
potential benefits of eHealth technologies in
wound care, and the possible barriers to their
implementation
• Recommendations for ensuring a good
implementation process and supporting
involvement of wound care professionals in
safeguarding that eHealth solutions meet the
needs of the patients.
Methodology The document sections lean on the structure
and focus areas of the Model for ASsessment of
Telemedicine (MAST) which defines crucial items
to evaluate an eHealth application.
The content of the document is developed on the
basis of a literature review, identifying available
documentation for use of eHealth solutions in
wound care. Furthermore, it draws on various
key documents recently published on the general
development, evaluation and implementation
of eHealth solutions. These include valuable
up-to-date information relevant for any group
of clinicians wishing to follow and influence
the way eHealth solutions are integrated into
clinical practice.
Findings and conclusionsThe literature review revealed that the amount and
level of evidence for use of eHealth applications in
wound care is still limited. Some MAST domains
are not examined in any of the available studies.
Thus, more research is required to identify the
potential benefits and harms to patients, and the
possible challenges related to implementation of
eHealth solutions in wound care.
Potential barriers and facilitators for the
implementation of eHealth applications into wound
care practice are identified in the document, and
these may all either enhance or impede the process.
However, the available research does demonstrate
patient satisfaction, improved access to health
services for all client cohorts, and increased job
satisfaction for clinicians.
The document recommends that wound
management clinicians, considering the use of
eHealth applications in their clinical practice,
consult widely and conduct regular evaluation of
the outcomes to ensure efficient implementation
of these services.
To support this approach, steps to ensure a
good implementation process within a given
organisation have been proposed. These are
synthesised into a three circle model.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 5
Abbreviations used in the document• CHF: Chronic heart failure
• COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• EWMA: European Wound Management
Association
• EU: European Union
• HRQoL: Health related quality of life
• ICT: Information and communication
technology
• MAST: Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine
• RCT: Randomised clinical trial
• WHO: World Health Organization
S 6 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Chapter 1: Background and aim of the document
Today, changes in population demographics,
an increasing number of individuals with
multiple comorbidities1 and lack of human
capital within the health-care setting, represent
new challenges for health-care systems. These call
for services that provide less expensive and more
efficient ways of delivering health interventions.2 The
European Commission encourages the development
and implementation of eHealth solutions to solve
these challenges throughout the world.3
Technology (for example, electronic records,
tele-translation and tele-electrocardiograms) has
already become an integrated part of health-care
system. Today an increasing number of technical
solutions and new ideas for using and sharing
data are developed in all areas of health care.4,5
These include, but are not limited to, systematic
medical treatment guidance in patients with heart
conditions,6 general aspects of diabetes mellitus
care,7 and management of individuals with COPD.8
Within wound care, tele-consultations via video or
sharing digital photos support access to expertise
in remote areas.9,10 These have been introduced as
a solution to support cross-sector communication
and task shifting from hospital-based experts to
community care staff.11,12 A variety of new options
for eHealth-supported wound assessment (for
example, portable devices for wound evaluations)
are already available and under continuous
development.
As expected, given the diversity of health-care
settings using eHealth solutions, the development,
introduction and evaluation of this approach to
health-care delivery is not homogenous.13 This
provides challenges for those wishing to embrace
the concept of eHealth, as the lack of a uniform
approach hinders understanding of the strength of
evidence to support the use of eHealth solutions.14
This challenge is not unique to eHealth, it is
reflected in the literature as being a challenge to the
wound care world as a whole.15
When evaluating eHealth solutions, other aspects of
their use, for example, organisational, economical,
patient-related perspectives, and especially potential
harm, must be evaluated in order to determine
the real effect of the implementation of these
technologies. The need for a consistent approach to
evaluate eHealth solutions led to the development of
MAST, which was made public in 2012. This model
constitutes an evidence-based framework to evaluate
eHealth applications in a structured manner,
yielding valuable information for decision-makers.16
In light of the challenges facing health-care
systems, coupled with the rapid development
of new technologies presented as solutions, and
the limited amount of high-quality evidence for
the use of telemedicine and telehealth in chronic
wound management,17 EWMA has developed this
document on eHealth in wound care.
The aim of this document is to provide clinicians
who are interested in this subject with concise
information about the use of eHealth solutions
within a wound care setting. The objectives of this
document are therefore to:
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 7
• Provide the starting point for a common language
about eHealth in the wound-care community
• Support eHealth literacy of clinicians working in
wound care
• Serve as a useful tool for clinicians to obtain a
rapid and structured overview of the key issues,
including the benefits of eHealth technologies
and the barriers to their implementation in
wound care
• Describe the role of wound-care clinicians in
ensuring that eHealth services introduced for
use in wound care support the needs of the
patients and the clinical practice setting
appropriately
• Provide wound-care clinicians with guidance on
the evaluation of eHealth solutions
• Provide a simplified overview of terminology
including examples of various type of applications
and services relevant to wound-care provision
The document is primarily aimed at health
professionals working in the field of wound care.
However, it will also be of value to those outside
the field, who are interested in understanding the
value, potential challenges and evaluation methods
related to use of eHealth solutions. Policy makers,
wider service providers and industry may also find
this document valuable as the clarity may provide
insights into the use of eHealth solutions more
generally.
S 8 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Chapter 2: Terminology
The terminology used to cover the
spectrum of eHealth solutions still lacks
standardisation at a local and international
level. Furthermore, the terminology employed
is often used with different meanings and this
makes it difficult to articulate clearly about the use
of eHealth.18
Among the most widely used terms for health care
employed by information and communication
technologies (ICT) are:
• eHealth: The EU Commission defines eHealth as:
‘The use of ICT in health products, services and
processes combined with organisational change in
health-care systems and new skills, in order to improve
health of citizens, efficiency and productivity in health-
care delivery, and the economic and social value of
health. eHealth covers the interaction between patients
and health-service providers, institution-to-institution
transmission of data, or peer-to-peer communication
between patients and/or health professionals’.19
This definition stresses that eHealth is about changes
in the way health care is organised by use of ICT.
• mHealth: This term has been introduced in
recent years and is defined as
‘Medical and public health practice supported by
mobile devices, such as mobile phones, patient
monitoring devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs),
and other wireless devices’.20
Within wound care examples of mHealth include
wound apps offering guidance for wound care
experts, private carers and patients, as well as
portable devices.
• Telecare: Widely defined as ‘a combination of
alarms, sensors and other equipment to help
people live independently’ (primarily aimed at
social care needs).21
• Telehealth: The use of equipment to monitor
people’s health in their own home. This term
is linked to telecare and primarily used for
monitoring of chronic conditions via recording
of for example: blood glucose, blood pressure
and heart rate.21
Within wound care, ‘intelligent sheets’ and
dressings offering automatic monitoring of the
wound condition or the patient’s risk of pressure
ulcer development, constitute examples of
telehealth and telecare.
• Telemedicine: Defined as the remote exchange
of data between a patient and health-care
professional(s) to assist in the diagnosis and
management of health-care conditions. WHO
defines telemedicine as a solution for providing
specialised health care to populations in remote
areas.18 However, today, telemedicine is also
widely used to provide expert evaluations to
larger groups of patients, thereby possibly
saving resources in the health-care provider
organisations.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 9
Within wound care, telemedicine often refers to
remote wound assessment or teleconsultations
(supported by video or photography) supporting
communication between community care staff and
hospital based wound-care experts. The terminology
used in the studies included in this document’s
review varies. Examples of the terminology include
e-consultation, teleconsultation, telemedical
visit, telemedical collaboration, store and forward
telemedical system, mobile wound care and
teleassessment. Most eHealth solutions used
specifically within wound care support wound
monitoring following a diagnosis made during a
face-to-face meeting with the patient.
For the purpose of this document we will use the
term eHealth when referring to the overall use
of ICT in the health-care sector, and specifically
in wound care. This document focus primarily
on services that may be defined as telemedicine
and telehealth (as described above). However,
other eHealth solutions that used in connection
with wound care include training of health-care
staff by e-learning, internal management systems
and electronic patient records. The more specific
solutions referred to in the text will be clear from
the context in which they are used.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the
terminology used in this rapidly developing field
is likely to be constantly changing, due to the
influence of new technologies and structural
changes in health-care delivery.
S 1 0 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Chapter 3: The model for assessment of telemedicine (MAST) – evaluation of telemedical solutions
In 2009, a group of researchers were asked
to develop a specific model for assessing
telemedicine (MethoTelemed) and this
led to the development of a multidisciplinary,
systematic, unbiased and robust system named
MAST.16 This document describes the three steps in
evaluating procedures, focusing on mature eHealth
technologies to be introduced in the health-care
services, targeting individuals with a variety of
diseases. These steps include:
• Preceding considerations
• Multidisciplinary assessment
• Transferability assessment
Within the framework of multidisciplinary
assessment, MAST includes seven domains that
should be addressed during an evaluation. Fig 1
illustrates the content and structure of MAST.
MAST is based on the EUnetHTA Core Model.22
The model has been tested in a number of studies,
among those two European studies, the Renewing
Health project (www.renewinghealth.eu) and the
United4Health project (www.united4health.eu).
Adopting MAST to ensure comparable studiesIn most of the available studies of eHealth
solutions in wound care, a number of different
aspects have been addressed, for example patient
satisfaction and technical feasibility. A number
of other domains have remained unaddressed.
Fig�1.�The�content�and�structure�of��MAST(First�published�in�Kidholm�et�al.�2012)16
Preceding�considerations• Purpose of the telemedicine application?
• Relevant alternatives?
• International, national, regional or local level of assessment?
• Maturity of the application?
Multidisciplinary�assessment1. Health problem and characteristics of the application
2. Safety
3. Clinical effectiveness
4. Patient perspectives
5. Economic aspects
6. Organisational aspects
7. Socio-cultural, ethical and legal aspects
Transferability�assessment• Cross border
• Scalability
• Generalisability
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 1 1
The MAST methodology
The sections below describe in fur ther details the three levels of MAST: Preceding considerations, multidisciplinary assessment and transferability assessment. These descriptions are based on the MAST introductory ar ticle by Kidholm et al. which can also be consulted for fur ther information about the assessment method.16
Preceding considerations
First of all, it must be evaluated whether the eHealth application in question can be expected to lead to improvement in health care. The aim of introducing the new technology should be described, including considerations concerning the type of patients targeted and the primary outcome measures. It should also be clear whether the eHealth application will be compared with usual care or a different technology. Finally, it must be clarified whether the assessment concerns implementation on local level or large-scale deployment of the technology on regional, national or international level, as the different levels may introduce different types of challenges and opportunities related to the eHealth service.
When these initial considerations have been made, the model suggests that potential barriers are then addressed. Typical barriers to address include:
• Legal issues related to medical care provision: It must be evaluated whether the eHealth application conflicts with any national or regional legislation.
• Reimbursement structures: Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) refers to a reimbursement system adapted by a number of countries. It is common practice that telemedicine-based consultations have not been assigned a DRG tariff, and this may reduce the incentive to perform these services.
• Maturity: The available technology must be sufficiently mature (a tested and stable service) to be evaluated with the objective of ensuring validity and applicability.
• Number of patients: The assessment must include a specified and sufficient number of patients to be able to approximate the estimated costs to the real-life use of the technology.
Multidisciplinary assessmentWhen the preceding considerations have been made, the multidisciplinary assessment includes seven domains that must be addressed for a full evaluation of the telemedicine application. The seven domains include:
• Health problem and characteristics of the application
This refers to a description of the health problems of the targeted population as well as an introduction to the technological platform and usability measures.
• Safety includes aspects of risk induced to patients
These safety issues should include clinical safety as well as technical safety (technical reliability). Steady reporting of adverse events and an evaluation of patient risks should be carried out throughout the evaluation process.
S 1 2 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
According to the needs of the product providers,
technical solutions should be implemented as fast
as possible. However, from the point of view of the
health professionals and health-care organisations
there is an absolute need for well-designed clinical
studies, addressing all relevant aspects, before
new technologies are implemented. It should be
taken into consideration that study results may
not always be applicable in different countries.
Within the EU countries the infrastructure
varies significantly and a solid technological
platform will make a great difference when
introducing a new technology, as opposed to
low-income countries with limited technological
infrastructure.23
It is clear that innovative research will provide
a large number of new technical solutions for
use in health-care systems. It is crucial that these
solutions are thoroughly evaluated and that
the implementation process is iterative, so that
technologies can be adapted after thorough testing
in a clinical setting. It is also important that
we decide whether we aim to reduce mortality,
• The clinical effectiveness evaluation
This should include the effects on mortality, morbidity, quality of life and behavioural outcomes. It is suggested that this assessment be based on well-performed clinical trials using the PICO (patient intervention comparator outcome) criteria to assure that the same process is initiated every time a new technology is applied.
• The patient perspective
The patient perspective refers to matters such as patient satisfaction related to the new technologies – for example, does it provide a realistic alternative for all patients or a certain subgroup, do patients have access to use the technology, and are they able to use the technology in accordance with instructions? Finally, the impact on patient empowerment should be evaluated.
• The evaluation of economic aspects
This should include the development of a business case including expenditures per year, revenue per year, process, structure, culture, management, ethical issues, legal issues and social issues. The evaluation should include a comparison with the resources used in connection with existing (possibly more conventional) disease-handling methods and value for money with respect to clinical cost-effectiveness and QALYs (quality-adjusted life years).
• The evaluation of organisational aspects
This should include a survey of the resources needed in relation to the implementation of the new technology, and the consequences the use of this may have within the organisation. The introduction of a new technology may, for example, reduce the workload of some groups of clinical staff, and increase
the work of others, or it may include opportunities to shift tasks between different types of health-care staff or between sectors.
• Socio-cultural, ethical and legal aspects
This refers to considerations regarding the socio-cultural affiliations that the targeted patients have, which may affect their ability to accept and use the new technology, and legal questions that may be relevant to handle in connection with the implementation of the new technology (for example, aspects of privacy, ownership and transfer of registered data), and the existing legal obligations or barriers to implementation.
Transferability assessmentTransferability assessment constitutes the third level of MAST. This is an important aspect to consider with regard to the potential use of the technology within other disease areas and geographical areas (e.g. other regions or countries/socio-cultural settings), as well as the suitability of the system for large-scale deployment (nationally or internationally). This evaluation should also include an assessment of the possible use of the technology in a system with a limited technological infrastructure. This part of the evaluation tests the technology within a broader context of the characteristics of the health-care systems and their ability to integrate and benefit from the eHealth solution in question. It should also be evaluated whether there are challenges or opportunities to be considered with regard to integration with other clinical or administrative systems (interoperability). These aspects may be crucial for the realisation of the potential benefits for patients and health-care institutions.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 1 3
increase patient satisfaction, obtain savings
in health-care costs or simply use telemedical
solutions as another way of communicating within
the health-care system or among individuals
with comorbidities. To approach the evaluation
of eHealth solutions in a standardised way, it is
suggested that health professionals adopt MAST as
a common model for future clinical studies within
this field. The common platform for evaluating
eHealth services in different settings will also allow
recruitment of patients across borders and generate
comparative studies.
Reliability and validity should be applied to every
one of the seven domains of the multidisciplinary
assessment by considering whether the outcome
measures and data-collection methods included in
a study will produce valid and reliable measures
of the theoretical outcome you want to measure.
With regards to the overall validity, the purpose
of MAST is to provide information about the
outcomes of telemedicine services that decision
makers need to determine whether or not to
implement the service. Basing MAST on the
EUnetHTA core model supports this objective.
MAST is based on input from a number of
European decision makers. Results from studies
on the validity of MAST are not yet available, but
the fact that a number of regions in Europe have
chosen it as the basis for their investments in
telemedicine indicates that these decision makers
find the model appropriate.
A number of telemedical solutions have been
applied and tested within the field of wound care
(Ssee literature review included in this document)
but none of the evaluations of these technologies
have so far covered all aspects proposed by MAST.
Even though the method is cumbersome, it is
mandatory that future studies are performed
on the basis of this common platform to ensure
comparability and transferability.
With regard to the study design, this should be
appropriate to answer the research question(s)
defined. Recent large-scale studies24,25 have reported
that restrictions on procedures in an RCT may be
a challenge, as potentially inefficient procedures
defined in the original trial protocol cannot be
changed during the course of the trial. These
experiences may be taken into consideration, but
should not influence the aim, which is to produce
evidence of the highest possible quality within
this area.
Finally, it should also be stressed that involvement
of various types of expertise (economists, technology
developers, sociologists etc.) and collaboration
between all relevant groups of stakeholders, (health-
care staff, management, health-care authorities
and providers of eHealth solutions) is crucial for
a successful development of sustainable eHealth
solutions. To carry out a complete analysis according
to MAST, all these types of competencies and
perspectives should ideally be included.
S 1 4 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Chapter 4: Literature review
IntroductionThis review primarily includes studies of those
eHealth solutions that have traditionally been
used within the wound care domain, such
as teleconsultations, which aim to provide
remote areas or community care settings with
hospital-based wound management expertise.
It should, however, be mentioned that many
new eHealth technologies for use in wound care
have recently been introduced on the market or
are being developed for the wound care market.
It is therefore likely that new solutions will
be implemented into clinical practice within
the coming years, if their value for wound-
care patients and health-care systems can be
documented. These include devices such as
intelligent sheets, tools for automatic wound
diagnostics tools, risk-assessment tools, and
hand held treatment devices, which may support
wound-care treatment moving from a hospital
setting to a community/home care setting.
As mentioned in the terminology section, eHealth
in wound care constitutes a ‘moving target’, and
for this reason a repetition of this review is likely to
be needed within a 2–3 year timeframe, to ensure
that an update of the existing eHealth solutions,
to provide the needed information for potential
implementation of these solutions is available.
Search strategy The objective of the literature review was to
evaluate evidence of telemedicine as a method of
delivering wound care as an alternative to face-to-
face consultations, using the evaluation criteria
defined by MAST.
Papers were included if they appeared in peer-
reviewed journals containing original research
published between 2000 and 2014. Reports, non-
reviewed journals, book chapters, newspapers and
websites were not included.
Fig�2.�Literature�search�-�results
Number of articles after dupicates removed/screened
by title: 689
Number of articles excluded in title screening:
479
Number of articles excluded because they did not meet
inclusion criteria:
171
Number of articles after title screening (full texts assessed
for eligibility): 210
Number of articles included in the review:
39
Articles identified through database searching:
MEDLINE: 553
EMBASE: 134
CINAHL: 84
Cochrane Library: 19
Total:�790
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 1 5
Chapter 4: Literature review
Table�1.�Table�of�included�studies.
Ref no Author * Year Type of study Country Aim
45 Johnston et al 2000 Quasi-experimental USA To evaluate the use of remote video technology in the home health-care setting as well as the quality, patient satisfaction, and cost savings from this technology
33 Demiris et al 2003 Feasibility study USA To asssess if technical problems arise that could adversely affect the interaction with the patient during a telemedical visit. To examine the nature of the verbal interaction between the patient and the provider during a telemedical visit
41 Halstead et al 2003 Feasibility study USA To ascertain the percentage of agreement for teleassessment versus live responses to four yes/no questions regarding the need to change wound management, satisfaction with assessment, need for referral, and need for additional information
47 Kim et al 2003 Feasibility study USA To evaluate the clinical accuracy of a store and forward telemedicine system for assessing the status of different types of ulcers
26 Ameen et al 2004 RCT UK To evaluate the impact of expert teleadvice on nurses’ knowledge
28 Baer et al 2004 Feasibility study USA To assess the agreement between the home care nurses and specialist nurses in the assessment and treatment of wounds
38 Finkelstein et al 2004 RCT USA To assess the benefits of using low-cost, standards-based telecommunications and monitoring technologies for health care in the patients home needing skilled home health care
48 Kim et al 2004 Feasibility study USA To explore patient attitudes toward a telemedicine system
55 Rintala et al 2004 Feasibility study USA To determine the technical acceptability of information available via a customised telerehabilitation system
57 Santamaria et al 2004 RCT Australia To examine the effect on clinical outcomes and costs of providing remote expert wound consultation using the Alfred/Medseed Wound Imaging System (AMWIS)
60 Wilbright et al 2004 Feasibility study USA To determine if the telemedicine management of foot ulcers is medically equivalent to on-site care provided at a diabetic foot programme
S 1 6 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
10 Clemensen et al 2005 Feasibility study Denmark To investigate the use of telemedicine to enable a visiting nurse (in the patient’s home) to coordinate the treatment with experts at the hospital
54 Ratliff and Forch 2005 Feasibility study USA To examine the cost and time savings using telehealth for a group of older people with chronic wounds
56 Salmhofer et al 2005 Feasibility study Austria (1) To investigate the rate of accordance in the assessment of wound status by a specialist using teledermatology (‘e-consultation’ or ‘e-visits’) compared to the assessment by a physician performing face-to-face examination (‘live consultation’ or ‘live visits’) (2) To investigate-adverse events such as bacterial infections or allergic contact dermatitis can be confidently diagnosed by e-consultations (3)To investigate if the quality of the electronically transmitted images is sufficiently high to enable the specialist to recommend further therapeutic strategies with confidence
34 Dobke etl al 2006 Feasibility study USA To determine the effectiveness of electronic communication for diagnostic and therapeutic plan development purposes
44 Hofmann-Wellenhof et al
2006 Feasibility study Austria To examine the feasibility and acceptance of teledermatology for wound management of patients with chronic leg ulcers by home care nurses
49 Larsen et al 2006 Feasibility study Denmark To find out whether a universal mobile telephone system was a feasible technology for telemedical collaboration between hospital experts and visiting nurses in connection with the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers
30 Binder et al 2007 Feasibility study Austria To examine the feasibility and acceptance of teledermatology for wound management for patients with leg ulcers by home care nurses and evaluate the reduction of costs and the acceptance of teledermatology by patients and home care nurses
42 Hammett et al 2007 Feasibility study USA To explore the feasibility and usability of a web-based system for remote wound care consultation in long-term care
61 Wilkins et al 2007 Feasibility study USA To evaluate the feasibility of a web-based telemedicine programme for remote wound care team consultations for patients with chronic wounds
27 Assimacopoulos et al
2008 Feasibility study USA To investigate the efficacy of telehealth technology in providing timely, efficient, and prudent infectious disease care for rural patients
32 Car et al 2008 Systematic review N/A To examine the impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care
35 Dobke et al 2008 RCT USA To evaluate the impact of the telemedicine consultation on patients with chronic wounds
29 Barrett et al 2009 Feasibility study Australia To describe the systemic barriers encountered when implementing a telehealth program in rural Western Australia and provide recommendations for future telehealth initiatives
58 Terry et al 2009 RCT USA To evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine using digital cameras for treating wounds in a home-scare setting
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 1 7
51 Martínez-Ramos et al
2009 Feasibility study Spain To analyse the efficacy of the GPRS mobile phone–based telemedicine system used to assess local surgical wound complications during the postoperative course of patients
52 Pirris 2010 Feasibility study USA To examine the use of digital pictures taken with patients’ cell phones for home wound care
36 Dobke etl al 2011 Feasibility study USA To evaluate primary care physicians’ attitudes towards telemedicine and determine their satisfaction with telemedicine consultation for patients with problematic wounds
43 Hazenberg et al 2012 Feasibility study The Netherlands
To assess the feasibility of using a photographic foot imaging device (PFID) as a telemonitoring tool in the home environment of patients with diabetes who were at high-risk of ulceration
9 Summerhayes et al
2012 Feasibility study UK To explore the impact that the leg ulcer management tool system had on conventional leg ulcer care
37 Farook et al 2013 Feasibility study UK To determine the influence of telemedicine on management of facial lacerations in children
39 Friesen et al 2013 Feasibility study Canada To receive feedback on the design and functionality of an mHealth application for pressure ulcer documentation, with the objective to assess the caregivers’ experiences in using the wound care app
53 Quinn et al 2014 Feasibility study Ireland To examine the feasibility of using mobile phone technology to decentralise care from tertiary centres to the community, improving efficiency and patient satisfaction, while maintaining patient safety.
59 Vowden and Vowden
2013 RCT UK To evaluate the effectiveness of a telehealth system, using digital pen-and-paper technology and a modified smartphone, to remotely monitor and support the effectiveness of wound management in nursing home residents
31 Brewster et al 2014 Systematic review N/A To investigate factors affecting frontline staff acceptance of telehealth technologies
46 Khalil et al 2014 Feasibility study Australia To describe the steps needed for the successful implementation of the Mobile Wound Care system
40 Gagnon et al 2014 Feasibility study Canada To document nurses’ perceptions regarding the influence of ICT, including telehealth, on their practice and, eventually, on their recruitment and retention in remote or outlying regions
50 Mammas et al 2014 Feasibility study Greece To evaluation of feasibility and reliability of Mobile-Telemedicine Systems in the remote prevention of diabetes related complications
17 Nordheim et al 2014 Systematic review N/A To assess the effect of telemedicine follow-up care on clinical, behavioural or organisational outcomes among patients with leg and foot ulcers
* official publication year
S 1 8 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
The review focused on evaluation of wound care
provided or monitored by a telemedical solution.
The review included all types of clinical studies
in the field of telemedical intervention aimed at
chronic wound care. The search terms included
eHealth related terminology (telemedicine,
eHealth, mobile health and text word variations)
combined with wound-related terminology
(wound, ulcer, diabetic foot ulcer, leg ulcer and
pressure ulcer and text word variations). All other
types of emergency injuries (for example burns)
and studies with teleradiology or other non-wound
related assessments were excluded. Information
about the search criteria is provided in appendix 1.
After title screening and assessment based on the
inclusion and exclusion criteria, 39 papers were
included in the review (Fig 2),9,10,17,26–61 these are
shown in Table 1.
Synthesis Type and geographical location Of the 39 studies considered during review,
the majority (n=29) were feasibility studies
descriptively designed to evaluate a singular
eHealth initiative. Of the remainder, there
was one quasi-experiment, six RCTs and three
papers detailing systematic reviews. In terms of
geographical location of the studies, 20 were from
North America (USA 18, Canada 2), 13 from Europe
(Austria 3, Denmark 2, Greece 1, Ireland 1, Spain
1, The Netherlands 1, UK 4), and 3 from Australia
with the 3 systematic reviews being unclassifiable.
Health-care settingThe most common setting and patient
population targeted by eHealth studies, perhaps
unsurprisingly, was the home care setting (15
studies). This was followed by long-term care
settings (5 studies) and outpatients clinic (5
studies), acute care (4 studies), GP care (2 studies),
rehabilitation care (1 study) and 4 studies which
targeted multiple care settings. It is clear from
this that work in this area concentrates on care at
home or care in the community in an attempt to
use eHealth to keep people with wounds in their
own environments.
Year of publication The studies ranged from 2000 to 2014. Fig 3
demonstrates a peak in studies on wound care and
eHealth in 2004, and a growing number of studies
emerging in the last two years.
Type of wound involved in study The most common types of wound addressed by
eHealth strategies were chronic wounds (n=8),
leg ulcers (n=7) and diabetic foot ulcers (n=6).
Surgical wounds were the focus of 3 studies and
Fig�3.�Number�of�articles�by�year�of�publication
8
6
4
2
0
3 3 3 32
1112
45
7
0 0
4
2003200220012000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 1 9
Table�2.�Sample�sizes�and�total�numbers�involved�in�all�studies.
Health professionals (10 studies)
Patients (28 studies)
Participant range Minimum 5 Minimum 3
Maximum 38 Maximum 145
Total number 143 1417
Table�3.�eHealth�solutions�and�numbers�of�studies.
eHealth solutions No. of studiesTeleconsultation – synchronous Real-time data transfer allowing the patient to take active part in the consultation
15
Teleconsultations – asynchronous Patient data transmission via email or patient record system
12
Teleconsultations – both Email and telephone/video-conference
7
Apps Supporting data transmission
1
Content management system Collection of a range of data about the nature of the wounds
1
Not classified 3
pressure ulcers in 2. The remaining studies (n=13)
dealt with different types of wounds and did not
specifically state the type of wounds, or the wound
was unclassifiable. The high numbers dealing with
chronic and often long-term wounds such as leg
ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers ties in with the
tendency of eHealth strategies being targeted at
home care and community care.
Participants and sample sizes In the majority of cases the target for intervention
and measurement of effect were patients
(28 studies), while 10 studies targeted health
professionals. In terms of health professionals,
nurses were the most common target (n= 6). There
were 2 studies33,35 targeting both patients and
health professionals. The 3 systematic reviews17,31,32
were unclassifiable in this regard. Studies targeting
health professionals concerned educational
interventions or the collection of evaluative
feasibility data. Table 2 displays the range of
sample sizes and total numbers involved in all
studies. This indicates that, to date, well-powered
studies have not been carried out in this area.
eHealth solutionsThe vast majority of the eHealth interventions
described in the reviewed research articles were
what could be termed teleconsultations. For
the purposes of classification we understand
teleconsultation to mean the transmission of
images and/or data to enable treatment to be
prescribed and monitored. Teleconsultations were
further subdivided by being either synchronous or
asynchronous, with some studies describing both.
A small number of studies described other eHealth
solutions (Table 3).
Aims of the reviewed studiesCommon themes also emerged in assessing the main
aims of the studies. Reflective of the fact that most of
the studies involved are feasibility studies, the main
aim in many was to ascertain whether or not the
systems adopted, worked. Other common aims were
to ascertain patient or practitioner acceptance.
Nature of outcome measures and relationship to MAST MAST provides a framework to assess the different
outcomes and aspects of the specific telemedicine/
eHealth applications. The studies reviewed for the
purposes of this position paper were subjected to
an analysis of their targeted outcomes using MAST
in order to gauge whether the various areas of the
model are being addressed. Fig 4 demonstrates the
results of this analysis. Some papers address more
S 2 0 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
than one outcome (total: n=68). Fig 4 illustrates
the degree of inclusion of the various outcome
measures in percentages of the overall numbers of
measured outcomes. All of the studies (given the
search strategy) fulfil the criteria of addressing a
particular health problem or need, and having an
eHealth application.
As can be seen from Fig 4, D3 (clinical
effectiveness) is a frequently targeted outcome
with D4, D5 and D6 attracting small amounts
of attention. D2 (safety) is only targeted by one
study32 of those reviewed and D7 (sociocultural,
ethical and legal aspects) is not examined.
Actual outcome synthesis While a range of similar outcomes were measured
and reported throughout all the studies reviewed,
the methods used to measure and record outcomes
were disparate, not allowing direct comparison of
the findings. While this heterogeneity hampers
comparison it is possible to identify trends
that indicate the possible usefulness of eHealth
applications used in wound care. These are
reported below also under the MAST heading as
appropriate.
MAST D1: Health problem and character of application The outcomes relate in the main to the usability
and technical quality of the application. Some
other characteristics of applications are also
reported in a small number of cases: technical
quality was reported on positively in four
cases30,33,41,42, negatively in one case29 and with no
change/mixed in one case.49 Usability was reported
on positively in six cases.10,39,50,53,55,59
The literature confirms that the technological
solutions needed to provide teleconsultations
(as the primary topic of the identified studies)
exists and are relevant for use in targeted patient
populations. Furthermore, the existing literature
base reveals no reason to doubt that eHealth
solutions are relevant for use in wound care. In
digital photos of wounds and web-based patient
100%
3%
% Outcomes addressing MAST Domains
19%16%
20%
0%
41%
D1 Health problem and character of
application
D2 Safety D3 Clinical effeciveness
D4 Patient perspectives
D5 Economic aspects
D6 Organisational
D7 Sociocultural ethical and legal
Fig�4.�Nature�of�outcome�measures�and�percentage�relationship�to�MAST
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 2 1
information systems of wound care, eHealth is
already omnipresent and is influencing patient
pathways in different ways.
MAST D2: SafetyOnly one study reported on safety32 and this did
not identify any major safety issues in relation to
wound care.
This weak level of evidence found in the review
is supported by a recent review on safety issues
related to telemedical wound assessment
published by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and
Technologies in Health (2014).62 A final conclusion
on safety threats to the patients can therefore not
be made. In the case of teleconsultations in wound
care, risk factors are most likely to be linked with
a decrease in the quality of the care, for example
due to insufficient photo quality, or absence of the
opportunity for the expert to smell and physically
examine the wound. Potential risks need further
evaluation in the case of eHealth applications
where automatic monitoring of the wound
condition may take place without involvement
of health-care staff to assist the patient. In this
case, safety issues are linked more directly to the
functionality of the device in question. Thus,
the question about quality and safety issues (is
treatment/monitoring quality as good as in the
case of face-to-face contact?) is definitely a crucial
area needing further attention.
MAST D3: Clinical effectiveness A total of 41% of outcomes were designed to
measure clinical effectiveness in a number of
different guises, for example, amputation rates,
wound healing, use of antibiotics, hospitalisation
duration, patient satisfaction and HRQoL. The
most common measure of clinical effectiveness
was the level of agreement between assessors in
wound assessment using eHealth applications.
These were all reported on positively (14
cases).28,34,37,38,41,43,44,48,50–53,55,56
The positive impact on the principle clinical
measure, wound healing, was less definitive with
three postive reports,57,59,61 one negative,58 and two
showing no change.17,60 Clinical outcomes other
than healing, such as antibiotic usage and duration
of hospitalisation were reported on positively in
one case however overall patient survival was not
found to be statistically different with or without
the use of eHealth. Enhanced patient satisfaction
with care delivery was reported in seven studies,
however, a further study noted no statistically
significant changes in HRQoL.
In conclusion, there is an acceptable amount of
evidence available to support the idea that wound
assessment using eHealth applications is clinically
relevant. It should be stressed that most of the
available studies are case-control studies, and that
one RCT found prolonged healing time. Other
clinical outcome measures (amputations, wound
status, death) were reported to a limited degree
and only with positive or neutral results. Factors
such as an adequate assessment, pain reduction
and improved HRQoL are also important markers
of clinical effectiveness in wound management.
Further documentation of effect on these areas
would provide crucial information for defining
whether this domain is covered by the applications
evaluated for use.
Therefore, there is still a lack of high-quality
evidence providing a proper basis for conclusions
on the important aspects of clinical effectiveness.
However, it should also be mentioned that
use of eHealth in clinical practice indirectly
supports performing studies. This is due to the
fact thatconsistent data collections, made in
connection with the registration of all patient
data in shared databases by use of eHealth
applications, provide a large data set available for
study purposes. In the case where shared systems
are deployed nationally this may provide valuable
data about patient populations and treatments
S 2 2 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
across the country or even across national
borders. These data may be used to plan health-
care services and can potentially lead to increased
efficiency and resource savings in health-care
provision. This does, however, require that the
use of the data is considered in the development
phase, and that regulatory and data security issues
are properly assessed.
MAST D4: Patient perspectives Patient perspectives were reported on in 19% of
outcomes reported. Patient satisfaction is the only
reported outcome and is largely positive, with six
positive,10,35,38,47,51,61 and two mixed.30,49
In teleconsultations, which involve wound
assessment by non-expert health-care staff in the
presence of the patient, the equipment meeting
the user requirements of the patient group, is
not as important as it is in the case of telehealth
solutions where the patient takes responsibility
for use of the equipment. The level of patient
empowerment and increase in health literacy also
varies in these two cases. It should be mentioned
that new technologies for measurement of various
types of wounds and wound conditions are on
their way to the market, and under development.
It is likely this will lead to an increase in direct
involvement of the patient and private care-
givers in wound management. The patient
perspective will therefore be increasingly relevant
to evaluation, and the potential gains for increased
patient empowerment are likely to increase.
With regard to the generally positive feedback
from patients involved in the reviewed studies,
it should be mentioned that the validity of the
methods used to evaluate patient satisfaction
levels is low level or flawed, as pointed out by
previous reviews.63,64 For example, it is not always
clear whether the patients are evaluating the
telemedicine solution specifically, or whether they
evaluate the complete health-care service delivered.
MAST D5: Economical aspects A small number of outcomes sought to measure
economic aspects of the applications and
again these were mainly positive, with six
positive,9,35,45,54,57,59 and one negative.58 These
related to overall cost of care delivery and in two
cases the reduction in transportation costs as a
result of the eHealth application.
It is, however, not clear whether factors such as a
higher disease and/or comorbidity burden in the
control groups, compared with the intervention
group, may have influenced these results. Recent
large-scale studies on use of telemedicine and
telehealth solutions, such as the Whole Systems
Demonstrator project in the UK24 and the Pan-
European Renewing Health project25 have not found
strong documentation on cost savings generated
by use of telemedicine and telehealth within a
number of different disease areas (primarily CHF,
COPD, and diabetes mellitus). Findings in these
studies are generally that treatment costs remain
the same after implementation of telemedicine
or telehealth solutions. They do, however, point
out various reasons for the lack of cost savings.
Primary reasons were found to be high costs to
purchase of the equipment and that restrictions on
procedures in an RCT prevent the staff members
involved from changing the predefined procedures
according to experiences made during the course
of the trial. Thus, inefficient procedures have
been continued despite the fact that these would
probably have been changed outside the context of
the clinical trial.
The relativity simple equipment and
off-the-shelf software typically used for remote
wound assessment, and the fact that most of
the studies included in the review made for this
document were not RCTs, could support the
positive reporting on economic benefits in these
studies. However, given the results from the large-
scale trials, the relatively small sample sizes, and
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 2 3
the methodological insecurities of these studies,
it can be concluded that the evidence needed to
make final conclusions is lacking.
MAST D6: Organisational aspects The main outcomes addressed with regard to
organisational aspects relate to practitioner
satisfaction with the eHealth application, with six
reporting positively,30,39,40,44,61 and two mixed.36,42
Other outcomes related to time and organisational
efficiencies (five reported positively,10,26,41,53,59 and
one mixed).31
These studies present largely positive reports on
the practitioners satisfaction with the eHealth
application as well as increased efficiency.
However, other studies found major obstacles
related to reorganisation of the work force.29 A
primary expectation for the organisational effects
of eHealth implementation is that this would
liberate staff resources or shift tasks between
different groups of health-care staff.23 In the case
of teleconsultations, a primary objective may be
to shift tasks from hospital nurses and doctors to
nurses in the community care sector, liberating
wound care expert resources in the hospitals,
and increasing interdisciplinary collaboration
and educating non-specialised groups of staff.40
The review includes positive reports on these
organisational effects.10 It should, however, be
stressed that a plan for reorganisation of the staff
resources, including a staff training programme,31
and an adaption of the patient pathway is crucial
in ensuring efficient use of the resources liberated.
This supports maximisation of the benefits of
the use of new technologies. It is crucial that
this process is led by clinical staff members with
consideration of the patient situation.
MAST D7: Socio-cultural, ethical and legal aspectsNo studies included in the review report on
these aspects. The relevance of these issues will
naturally vary, depending on demographic
variation and cultural aspects, such as the level
of trust in authorities. This may influence the
level of acceptance from patients with regards to
the registration and sharing of their health data.
The fact that this has not been an outcome of
any of the reviewed studies may indicate that it is
not understood as a major issue, but it may also
constitute one of the reasons for varying success
rates for implementation of eHealth solutions.
ConclusionThis document does not include a systematic
evaluation of the quality of included studies, and we
therefore recommend that conclusions made on the
basis of the literature review should be interpreted
with this in mind. On the basis of the literature
review conducted for this document, we conclude
that the available evidence base for use of eHealth in
wound care is weak, but that the reports are largely
positive with regard to those aspects addressed.
Many other relevant aspects remain largely untested,
yet are integral components of health-care provision,
such as clinical effectiveness and patient safety.
Despite this, remote wound assessment or
teleconsultations are already used or evaluated for
use in many countries (in some cases due to the
need to provide wound care expertise to peripheral
regions). This is not unique to eHealth, as many
treatment strategies throughout history have been
included in daily clinical practice without proper
documentation of effect, primarily based on the
fact that the strategies met the needs of the health
professionals, the patients and the health-care
system as a whole. However, the evidence base
does of course remain a crucial aspect of ensuring
best practice in health care, therefore this is an area
that needs further investigations.
eHealth is a developing process that is only partly
influenced by patients and health professionals,
who are primary stakeholders of the strategies
S 2 4 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
applied for wound management in health-care
systems internationally. Independent technical
development and needs of the health-care
organisations will have their own impact on the
extent to which eHealth will be part of future
clinical practice. It is therefore important that
wound care clinicians and researchers engage in
this field of research and provide the evidence
needed to lead the way for implementation of
eHealth solutions that take all relevant aspects
into consideration. If eHealth solutions are
implemented on a large scale without a proper
evidence base for selection of appropriate patient
groups and clinical objectives for these services, the
potential gains may not be reached and patients
may receive less than optimal treatment.
The following section of the document will
provide an overview and discussion of aspects
supporting or working against implementation
eHealth applications in different clinical setting
and geographical areas.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 2 5
Chapter 5: Barriers and facilitators for eHealth
When practitioners and service
providers look to introduce eHealth
technologies they are often confronted
by a confusing array of advice; the complexities
of the devices, the infrastructure requirements
and the best approach to user education. A rapid
expansion of technological options and the
need to ‘future proof’ any investment can result
in health-care providers taking a conservative
approach. This section explores the barriers and
facilitators to the use of eHealth in an effort to
help provide a framework for judicious decisions
for effective implementation. The discussion draws
from MAST and focuses on the patients, health
practitioners, and services.
The patientsWhen examining the implementation of eHealth
solutions the focus is often on the device or
product. Viewing eHealth through this lens
results in ‘tail wagging the dog’ outcomes.
Care delivery systems may be changed to
accommodate the needs of technology without
demonstrable benefits for the patient. Cartwright
et al.65 found that patients suffering from COPD,
diabetes mellitus, or CHF randomly assigned
to a telemedicine care option for 12 months
demonstrated no improvements in their quality
of life or psychological outcomes. As there
were no deleterious effects for the patient the
authors concluded that these findings support
telemedicine as a viable option to current care
systems. However, it could be reasonably expected
that the additional outlays and effort required to
implement a telemedicine service should result
in greater benefits to the patients than current
systems, even though an alternative objective often
is the need to provide more efficient health care.
Replacing face-to-face contact with patientsDesigning eHealth systems to address unmet
patient needs instead of focusing on technological
requirements helps to ensure successful adoption
of such systems.66 For example, in contemporary
health-care systems face-to-face encounters
between patient and clinician usually require
the patient to travel to a relevant clinic or
consulting room. For chronic conditions, the
frequency of such visits can be numerous. The
associated impositions on the time and personal
expense of the patient incurred by travel and
time off work can be extensive. The use of remote
consultations via eHealth technologies has the
potential to enhance this system. The face-to-face
benefit is retained while travel is not required,
time is contained to the consultation only, and
infrastructure such as waiting rooms and booking
systems are not required. Indeed, teleconsultations
provide very viable alternatives to ‘therapies
of interaction’ such as counselling or health
education.67 However, if during the interaction
there is a need to examine the patient for example,
S 2 6 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
via palpation, then eHealth technologies would
be insufficient to meet the patient need. In this
case, additional technology such as robotics or
biosensors would be needed.68 The current systems
facilitate a wound management consultation by
clinician–patient interaction and visual inspection
of the wound.69 However, detecting odour,
examining the viscosity of wound bed tissue,
or assessing the temperature of the periwound
could not be performed. The rapid development
of wearable and remote sensor technology may
provide solutions for future consultation, but
are currently outside the scope of most clinical
services.68 Contemporary eHealth services used
in wound care rely on a clinician based with the
patient to relay examination findings to the expert
consultant. While this relies on clinicians with
both the time to be with the patient during the
consultation and the training in effective use of
the technology, it does provide a solution to the
contemporary eHealth technology limitations.70–74
The attitude of the patientsAnother perceived barrier and facilitator towards
eHealth services is the attitude of the patients.
As the services have been primarily focused on
the management of chronic diseases the age
profile of the client is most often elderly,75 and
two common contentions are drawn from this
fact. Many authors assert that the current cohort
of elderly patients have been exposed to less
technology throughout their life than younger
contemporaries. The second is that because the
client has had limited exposure to technology they
will be reluctant or fearful to use it as a form of
health-care assistance and consultation. Given the
pervasive nature of communication technologies
the first assertion is hard to support as the
exposure of this client cohort can be very varied,
limiting any generalisation. The second assertion
is not supported by the literature. Most studies
that have recruited clients defined as elderly report
a high degree of adoption and satisfaction with
the technology. A systematic review by Kuijper
et al.76 examined web-based interventions as a
mechanism for stimulating patient empowerment.
They reported a mean age for participants across
the various studies of 60 years (SD 8.5 years) with
an age range from 40 to 76 years. Of the 13 studies
reviewed, a significant improvement in patient
empowerment for the experimental group was
found in four studies. An improvement for both
control and experimental groups was found in
three studies and mixed results in the remaining
six studies. While not conclusive, these studies
challenge the assertion that clients over 60 years of
age will not adapt to eHealth as readily as younger
clients. In fact, in some instances, the eHealth
interactions are the only social interactions for
some clients and therefore viewed very favourably.
Furthermore, many of the so-called elderly citizens
are already very familiar with use of ICT from their
work and private life.
Work by Kim et al.47 evaluated patients’ attitudes
towards a ‘store and forward’ telemedicine sys-tem.
Patients with chronic wounds had digital images
taken by a nurse in their home, the images were
then forwarded onto to a physician who assessed
them. Generally patients were satisfied with
this form of consultation. However the authors
concluded from the results that patients also
believed that it was important to have a periodic
face-to-face consultation. Indeed, Dobke et al.35,36
introduced telemedicine before face-to-face
consultations for patients with complex wounds
and found that patient satisfaction was higher.
Patients thought that they were better educated
and had a closer connection with their primary
care provider. Overall they had a sense that their
care was more closely scrutinised.
Another common assertion is that patients with
visual or auditory limitations (often age-related)
will find the use of the technology challenging.
Again, the implementation of large-print screens,
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 2 7
enhanced audio systems and other disability
assistance devices make the technology readily
available to this client cohort.
Although a great deal more research is required
into patient satisfaction and telemedicine, there
are trends suggesting that patients are accepting
of this form of health-care delivery. However, the
provision of eHealth solutions will not negate the
need for periodic face-to-face consultations.
Patient data securityConcerns about maintaining the confidentiality
and security of patient data is often cited as a
patient-generated barrier to the use of eHealth
services.77–79 Preventing such breaches is a major
barrier to the implementation of eHealth services.
The implementation of, and regular updating
of, contemporary encryption codes and firewall
protection provide some risk management
strategies but data stored in electronic repositories
is always at risk of being ‘hacked’. However, this
risk is also associated with the client’s banking, and
other private material.
Private data security is, since 2012, a clearly
defined focus area of the European Commission
(www.ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/) with
the objective to strengthening online privacy
rights by proposing a reform of the EU’s 1995 data
protection rules.80,81 The 2012 rules may facilitate
cross-border data registration, which is very
relevant in the case of eHealth. Furthermore, the
EU-financed Momentum project provides guidance
on relevant issues to consider with patient data
security in its Blueprint.82
The patient may be both a barrier and a facilitator
of eHealth services. Thus, systems that attempt to
reengineer care services around the
needs or limitations of the technology in
preference to focussing on patient needs, risk
unnecessary imposts on the client resulting in
an increased dissatisfaction and decreased use of
the system. Equally, making assumptions about
the client’s preparedness to accept, for example,
teleconsultations based on aged-related stereotypes
runs the risk of excluding client cohorts who may
benefit most from the technological interventions.
The health practitionersThe literature describes a number of barriers and
facilitators to implementation of eHealth services
from the perspective of health-care practitioners.
Brewster et al.31 undertook a review of the literature
from 2000 to 2012 and identified a number of
considerations involved in staff acceptance of
eHealth solutions in clinical practice. Their results
demonstrated that the successful implementation
of these available and emerging technologies is
largely dependent on a number of issues including:
staff understanding of the technology, the impact
on the change of service delivery, interaction with
patients and technical issues.
Clear instructions and training for clinical staffMair et al.83 undertook an RCT of home telecare
for the management of patients having acute
exacerbation of COPD, and found that a source
of dissatisfaction for nurses participating in the
study was their role in the initial installation of the
equipment. They considered that it would have
been more appropriate for a technician, rather
than nursing staff, to install the equipment in
the patient’s home, citing that it was not effective
use of their time. In a further study, nursing staff
also believed that their workload increased with
the implementation of telehealth for patients
with COPD.84 Similar reasons were cited including
nursing staff installing and replacing faulty
equipment, and the increased time spent preparing
the patient for the consultation. In an earlier
study, nurses made a number of recommendations
to facilitate the ease of use of equipment in an
S 2 8 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
observational RCT into the implementation of a
home telecare service.85 This included producing
step-by-step guides and colour coding the cables.
Adequate and appropriate training was also
considered to be critical in a thematic analysis of
four health-care services in the UK using telehealth
to monitor patients with COPD.86 Training was
required not only in the use of the equipment but
also in facilitating identification of suitable patients
for teleconsultation. These findings are supported
by Brewster et al.31 and Yellowlees87 who found that
reliable, easy-to-use equipment and appropriate
training and support were fundamental to staff
acceptance of eHealth initiatives.
Another factor to consider is the involvement
of key stakeholders in the preliminary
implementation of eHealth services. One of the
themes that emerged from research undertaken
by MacKenzie et al.88 into the implementation of
a CHF service, was that nursing staff thought that
more time spent on prelaunch planning could
have improved the implementation.
Role of the championFundamental to the success of telemedicine
services is the role of ‘local champions’ or
‘clinical drivers’. These motivated individuals
promote the service, motivate the team, forge
relationships and take ownership,72,87,89 ultimately
ensuring its success. Ellis72 examined the role
of clinical champions in a wound care project
for remote Australia. The role of the champion
changed from team leader during the early phase
of the project, to health services advocate and
coach, and eventually salesperson and academic
during the final phase of the project. During the
change process it was the clinical champion who
inspired the team to overcome difficulties. Wade
and Eliott89 undertook a qualitative analysis of
37 varied telehealth services in Australia. They
found that the champion had three main roles:
promoting the service, acting as a legitimator
and relationship building. However, although
the role of a champion was important, it was not
the only answer to ensuring sustainability of the
service. Nonetheless, in a pilot of telemedicine
undertaken linking 11 sites in central and
peripheral Scotland,90 found that of these only one
site took on the service. The authors proposed that
poor uptake was primarily due to the absence of a
champion to drive the service.90
Hendy and Barlow91 found that champions are
very effective initially, however some champions
were reluctant to share ideas resulting in a lack
of spread of the innovation. In the later stages of
the implementation of remote care services they
advised against limiting knowledge of the service
to a few people citing that this potentially could
be detrimental to the progress. Although the role
of the champion is essential in the initial stages of
implementation, it is important that there is ‘buy
in’ from all involved in the programme for it to
remain sustainable.
In essence the success of the implementation
of telemedicine into routine service delivery is
dependent on a number of factors including:
staff having appropriate education and training
on the use of equipment, appropriate technical
support for the installation and maintenance of
equipment, involving staff in the initial planning
phase and having a local champion.
Access to specialised services The implementation of telemedicine allows for
improved access to specialised care, particularly for
patients living in remote areas.57,61,66,92–94
Another benefit of delivering a telemedicine
service in connection with remote area health care
is the opportunity for up-skilling of health-care
providers who work in rural and remote areas,
via formal and informal education, support and
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 2 9
networking.94 However in one study, a barrier
to implementing eHealth in rural and remote
Australia was chronic workforce shortages, where
there is a high turnover of staff.29 In this case
there is the need for constant training of staff
in the use of equipment. This can result in staff
under-using resources that are available to assist
with the management of chronic wounds. Similar
results were also found in other research.57,95,96
Conversely Moffatt and Eley94 in their literature
review found that there was greater staff
satisfaction due to use of eHealth applications.
Listed benefits were education and professional
development, improved local service and
experiential learning by having close contact with
specialists. These benefits reduced the perception
of health professionals at rural sites being isolated
and increased their skills and confidence with
information technology. They also suggested that
the implementation of telemedicine had a role to
play with recruitment and retention of staff.
The use of smartphone applications is also
an emerging method of telemedicine. For
example, an application was developed to
support community nurses managing patients
with leg ulcers working in remote Ireland. The
overall aim was to try and reduce the number of
vascular outpatient appointments, and improve
communication, while still providing specialised
review and advice.53 The software allowed either
a vascular surgeon or registrar to assess the
wounds using a standard proforma. The results
demonstrated that this mobile technology was
safe and reliable, reducing the number of face-to-
face consultations required. However, one of the
main barriers was access to wi-fi.
Essentially, telemedicine and telehealth allows
for access to specialised services both at rural
and remote sites as well as in metropolitan areas.
Barriers include high turnover of staff and ease of
use of the equipment.
The servicesWhile gaining the confidence of the patient and
the clinician are important barriers to be overcome
when implementing an eHealth service, it is of equal
importance to ensure the necessary infrastructure is
‘user friendly’, reliable and cost-effective.
User interfaceAn effective interface between the machine and
the human is a critical element of any eHealth
service. The recent popularity of various social
media services illustrate the point that an
easy-to-use, or intuitive, interface helps to ensure
larger user uptake.67,68,97–99 In the past companies
would select off-the-shelf software products and
then pay for any modifications needed to meet
the needs of the business. When it came time for
an upgrade of the software the company would
buy the newer version and then pay once again
for the modifications. Contemporary practice is to
buy off-the-shelf software and modify the business
to match the software, hence saving costs when
it is time to upgrade the software. The eHealth
technologies have undergone a similar transition.
A decade ago a video consultation required
dedicated technology, space and a technician. Now
a hand-held mobile or cell phone will achieve
the same outcome.29,68,100–102 Using ready-to-hand
technologies reduce costs, is usually familiar to the
user and is easily transported. All of this helps to
mitigate against the technology being rejected or
under used by the patient or the clinician due to a
poorly designed interface.
System reliabilityWhile the user interface is important, the reliability
of any eHealth technologies is paramount.
Consultation ‘drop out’, poorly defined images,
medical record system failure or unauthorised
access to confidential patient data will undermine
the delivery of any eHealth service. While many
authors recommend the types of technology and
security for an eHealth system the reality is that
S 3 0 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
very little in the way of standards exist in this
arena. For example if technology is to be used
to transmit an X-ray, the monitor must meet a
resolution standard. If not a diagnosis cannot
be made from the digital image. Such standards
are still limited in eHealth. Too often a service is
commenced by a keen enthusiast who sets up a
technological infrastructure based on their own
experiences or advice from ‘techies’.
Initiatives to solve these challenges are ongoing,
and relevant organisations are currently working
to promote certain standards. For example,
the nonprofit industry organisation Continua
is promoting a set of standards that suppliers
and buyers of eHealth technologies can consult
to ensure that systems are interoperable with
other devices and systems. Due to lack of
common standards in the past, the challenges to
interoperability will play a significant role in the
near future.
Until this happens clinicians wishing to provide
an eHealth wound care service are encouraged to
consult widely and pay special attention to aspects
of product quality, security and interoperability,
with regards to current systems and expectations
for the future. For further recommendations with
regard to selecting eHealth products and systems
we can refer to Continua recommendations (www.
continuaalliance.org) and best practice examples
provided by the Momentum Blueprint.82
Cost-effectiveness analysisThere is limited evidence with regard to the
cost-effectiveness of providing an eHealth service
compared with routine care.13,103 Cost savings
must be made if a consultation can be done at a
remote site rather than the patient traveling long
distance to the territory centre. A good example
of this is Australia where rural patients travel long
distances to access specialised tertiary services.94
For example, this may include travel by air due to
the vastness of the continent. Thus, a 30-minute
outpatient consultation could actually take three
patient days.92 Consideration must also be given to
time away from family, loss of time from work, and
hotel and sundry expenses.
The cost of installing and maintaining the
equipment must also be taken into account.
Mistry,103 in a review of the literature, found
there was inconclusive evidence with regard to
the cost-effectiveness of eHealth compared with
conventional health care. Wootton13 found similar
results reviewing eHealth in the management
of five common chronic diseases (asthma,
COPD, diabetes mellitus, CHF, hypertension).
Furthermore, it is important to stress that results
concerning cost-effectiveness evaluations in
different countries cannot be transferred directly
to another geographical location or country, due
to factors such as size of the region or country,
and the number of remote areas to be covered,
cross-country internet access, and the cost of
staff resources, among others. A comprehensive
business case should be developed before any
action is taken towards implementation of an
eHealth solution.82 This should also provide a basis
for evaluating the resource-saving potential, and
the costs related to implementation of the eHealth
supported services, including aspects of and costs
related to reorganisation of the health-care services.
SummaryMany barriers and facilitators for the
implementation of an eHealth system exist. Patient
acceptance, preparation of the clinician and the
available infrastructure can all either enhance or
impede the implementation process. Clearly, more
research is required to help identify cost–benefit
outcomes, ensure the reliability and security of
the systems and the safety of the patients, develop
the required standards/policy, and clarify where
eHealth fits into the continuum of care. This
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3 1
should not stop clinicians and patients from
exploring the benefits of eHealth. As illustrated
in this section, recent research demonstrates:
a high degree of patient satisfaction, improved
access to health services for all client cohorts
including underprivileged groups, and increased
job satisfaction for clinicians. Consulting widely,
keeping an open mind and conducting regular
evaluation of outcomes will help ensure any
wound management clinicians wanting to use
eHealth can do so in the most efficient manner
currently available.
S 3 2 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
A s described in the previous sections, all
steps in the eHealth implementation
process must be carefully considered, in
order to reduce the risk of major obstacles once
the implementation has been initiated
Chapter 6: Road map for implementation in clinical practice
In this section we describe proposed steps to
ensure a good implementation process within a
given organisation (aspects related to large-scale
deployment on regional or national level are not
described in this section). This process is described
in further detail in the Momentum Blueprint,82 and
we refer to this document for a more detailed view
on telemedicine deployment.
Fig 5 illustrates three levels (circle 1–3) demanding
specific attention in the different phases ranging
from initial considerations to actual implementation
and use of the system in a clinical practice.
Circle 1: Outer circleStep 1: System modelAs the first step, the type of system (service aim,
technology, organisational implications) should
be considered and decided on. This should be
done with the reasons in mind for integrating this
eHealth solution into the current clinical practice.
For example which problems/challenges is it
intended to solve and why is this type of system
believed to solve the problem/challenges? You
should also consider all relevant alternatives, to
be sure that you are working with the best suited
solution. This is an integrated part of the preceding
considerations of the MAST evaluation.
eHealth solution
Safety: data, patients,
staff
Technical: equipment
system, support
Education: patients and
staff
Care pathways:
team
Champions: experts and locals
Evaluation: MAST
Funding and reimbursement
System model
Fig�5.�What�must�be�in�place�during�development�and�implementation�of�an�eHealth�solution
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3 3
Step 2: MAST evaluationOnce you believe you have the right system, you can
start performing the total MAST evaluation. MAST
provides an established framework for evaluating
concrete, mature solutions with a focus on the
context in which it is planned to be implemented.
Step 3: Funding and reimbursement aspectsWhen the type of system has been selected,
analysed in the proper context, and found suitable
for providing the needed service, the opportunities
to gain the funding for implementing the system,
and the surrounding reimbursement system must be
evaluated. The Momentum Blueprint82 underlines
the importance of developing a good business plan
including a cost–benefit analysis, and taking into
account an appropriate reimbursement scheme that
supports the actions of the involved clinicians and
organisations. Guidance on developing the business
plan can be found in this report.
Circle 2: Middle circleStep 4: Champions: experts and localOnce the framework for implementing the
eHealth solution and the type of solution have
been analysed and approved for implementation,
focus should change to the key factors needed
to ensure a consistent progress in the change
management phase. This phase demands a group
of dedicated champions with sufficient power
to influence key players and decision makers in
the organisation. The local champion may be a
clinical staff member who makes sure that the
telemedicine application meets the demands of
the patients and professionals using it,86 while the
involved experts should provide the organisation
with the knowledge support needed to make the
right decisions. Expert knowledge may be provided
by regional/national health authorities and by
the technology provider (depending on their role
and financial interests). Both local and expert
champions must be supported by the relevant
management levels, and management levels must
be involved throughout to ensure progress.
Circle 3: Inner circleThe inner circle focuses on four specific aspects of
the actual implementation and use of the system.
These are aspects that need thorough consideration
and planning to ensure a functional system that is
properly founded in the services and situation of
the involved organisations.
Step 5: Technical aspectsA technical solution that is easy to use and has a
high degree of stability is an important basis for
S 3 4 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
ensuring that the system is accepted by the primary
users (patients and clinicians). It is therefore
important to make sure that the equipment
and system are properly connected and that
you have technical support at hand to solve the
start-up problems that are likely to occur during
the implementation phase and the future use of
the system. If an internal IT department has the
responsibility for the day-to-day running of the
system, you should make sure that this is closely
involved in the implementation phase. Avoid
an implementation phase only supported by an
external system provider. Finally, it is important to
make sure that you have a plan available for regular
testing and future proofing of the selected system.
Step 6: Safety aspectsThe safety aspects are naturally a crucial part of all
health management planning. These include data
security, safety for patients and a clear description
of the potential problems regarding definitions of
staff responsibility when using eHealth services.
These should be clearly addressed to avoid cases
of litigation. Data security aspects (who has
access to data, how are data transferred etc.) are
usually defined via national and international
legislation, and providers responsible for the
system should be asked to account for the
system’s accordance with these. See Momentum
Blueprint82 for further information.
Step 7: Adjustments according to care pathwaysThe patient care pathway must be a central part
of planning how the eHealth solution should be
integrated into the current clinical practice (or
adapted versions of this). Within wound care,
the care teams constitute an important aspect of
providing optimal care for the patient, as many
types of expertise are needed to ensure proper care
with a starting point in the specific needs of each
patient.104 Thus, it is crucial that the system supports
involvement of and communication between
all members of the wound care team. Also that a
clear plan for the telemedicine-supported patient
pathway is in place, including a clear definition of
the responsibilities of the team member profiles. In
the planning and implementation phase, wound
care team members (representatives of the various
groups in all involved sectors) should meet regularly
to ensure that all points of views are taken into
consideration.
Step 8: Education Finally, it is important to develop an educational
programme for all staff members using the system,
as well as for the patients, if they are responsible for
using the service without involvement of a clinical
staff member. The education should be adapted to
the background and needs of the different groups
of staff and patients. In cases where the eHealth
services supports involvement of groups of health-
care staff with no clinical expertise in the disease
area in question, the education may include
clinically relevant training that is not directly linked
to the use of the eHealth solution, but provides a
basis for involvement of non-professional carers in
the care team.
Part of this education may be as e-learning, to
enable education of groups based in more remote
areas, or those not likely to invest in more time-
consuming educational activities, for example
general practitioners with limited involvement.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3 5
Chapter 7: Conclusion
T he rapidly increasing complexity in health
care epidemiology, coupled with a growing
demand for greater cost-effectiveness and
efficiency, has seen a proliferation in the use of
eHealth across the health-care spectrum, including
in the field of wound care. As with other health-care
delivery modalities, the development and use of
eHealth in wound care has not been standardised,
resulting in a diverse application of the technology.
This poses challenges for those wishing to gain a
clear insight into the potential impact of eHealth to
prevent and control morbidity and mortality, and
its subsequent impact on the cost of care. In order
to provide some guidance on the most appropriate
variables to include in evaluating of eHealth
solutions, the MAST model was developed, outlining
three key aspects to consider: the preceding
considerations, a multidisciplinary assessment and
finally a transferability assessment.
Within the field of wound care there are mixed
outcomes arising from the evaluation of eHealth
solutions as demonstrated by the literature reviewed
here using the MAST model headings. The outcomes
are largely positive in the available studies, in
those aspects which were addressed such as patient
perspectives and organisational considerations.
However, many other relevant aspects remain
largely untested, yet are integral components of
health-care provision, such as clinical effectiveness
and patient safety. Despite this, there is a keen
interest among practitioners involved in wound care
to consider the use of eHealth solutions.
We have identified that there are barriers and
facilitators to consider when planning to adopt an
eHealth solution in wound care, such as patient
acceptance, the preparation of the clinician and
the available infrastructure, all of which can either
enhance or impede the implementation process. To
overcome these obstacles we have identified some
proposed steps to ensure a good implementation
process within a given organisation. These are
synthesised into a three-circle model, with the
outer circle addressing issues such as the system
itself, the evaluation process, and funding and
reimbursement. The middle circle outlines the
importance of having champions including
both experts in eHealth solutions and local
practitioners. Finally the inner circle addresses
issues pertaining to the actual implementation and
use of the system.
We believe that eHealth solutions provide a
real opportunity for enhancing the provision of
wound care in a more connected fashion both
nationally and internationally. From a EWMA
perspective we have been advocating strongly
for the implementation of knowledge into
practice, with the ultimate aim of enhancing
patient outcomes. It is evident from the
literature reviewed here that eHealth offers one
such opportunity. However, in keeping with
the guidance from MAST, any implementation
process should embrace the wider considerations
outlined within this document, to ensure greater
generalisability of outcomes achieved.
S 3 6 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
References
1�Christensen, K., Doblhammer, G., Rau, R., Vaupel, J.W. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet 2009; 374: 9696, 1196–1208.
2�Saner, H. eHealth and telemedicine: current situation and future challenges. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; 20: 2 Suppl,1–2.
3�European commission communication (2009)Telemedicine for the benefit of patients, healthcare systems and society. http://bit.ly/1Ndoq0z (Accessed March 2015).
4�Aas, I.H. The future of telemedicine--take the organizational challenge! J Telemed Telecare 2007;13: 8, 379–381.
5�Zarchi, K., Haugaard, V.B., Dufour, D.N., Jemec, G.B. Expert advice provided through telemedicine improves healing of chronic wounds: prospective cluster controlled study. J Invest Dermatol 2015; 135: 3, 895–900.
6�Purcell, R., McInnes, S., Halcomb, E.J. Telemonitoring can assist in managing cardiovascular disease in primary care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Fam Prac 2014; 15: 43.
7�Trief, P.M., Izquierdo, R., Eimicke, J.P., et al. Adherence to diabetes self care for white, African-American and Hispanic American telemedicine participants: 5 year results from the IDEATel project. Ethn Health 2013; 18: 1, 83–96.
8�Sorknaes, A.D., Bech, M., Madsen, H. et al. The effect of real-time teleconsultations between hospital-based nurses and patients with severe COPD discharged after an exacerbation. J Telemed Telecare 2013;19: 8, 466–474.
9�Summerhayes, C., McGee, J.A., Cooper, R.J., et al. Introducing leg ulcer telemedicine into rural general practice. Wounds UK 2012; 8: 2, 28–36.
10�Clemensen, J., Larsen, S.B,. Ejskjaer, N. Telemedical treatment at home of diabetic foot ulcers. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11: Suppl 2, S14–S16.
11�Jelnes R. Reflections on the use of telemedicine in wound care. EWMA. 2014; 14: 2 48–51.
12�Henneberg E. Telemedical wound assessment on the way to large scale deployment in Denmark. EWMA 2014; 14: 2, 43–46.
13�Wootton, R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management–an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 4, 211–220.
14�de la Torre-Diez, I., Lopez-Coronado, M., Vaca, C., et al. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health 2015; 21: 2, 81–85.
15�Gottrup, F. Apelqvist, J., Price, P. Outcomes in controlled and comparative studies on non-healing wounds: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence in wound management. J Wound Care 2010; 19: 6, 237–268.
16�Kidholm, K., Ekeland, A.G., Jensen, L.K. et al. A model for assessment of telemedicine applications: mast. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28: 1, 44–51.
17�Nordheim, L., Haavind, M., Iversen, M.M. Effect of telemedicine follow-up care of leg and foot ulcers: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 1, 565.
18�WHO (2010) Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States: report on the second global survey on eHealth. http://bit.ly/1hbBMtL (Accessed April 2015).
19�European Commission (2012) eHealth Action Plan 2012–2020 - Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/ehealth-action-plan-2012-2020-innovative-healthcare-21st-century (Accessed April 2015).
20�WHO (2011) mHealth - New horizons for health through mobile technologies, Global Observatory for eHealth series. http://www.who.int/goe/publications/goe_mhealth_web.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
21�Steventon, A., Bardsley, M. (2012)The impact of telehealth and telecare: the Whole System Demonstrator project. www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/our-work/projects/impact-telehealth-and-telecare-evaluation-whole-system-demonstrator-project (Accessed April 2015).
22�EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 Work Package 8. The HTA Core Model. http://bit.ly/1FFCpvw (Accessed April 2015).
23�European Health Telematic Association (2008) Sustainable Telemedicine: paradigms for future-proof healthcare Prepared for the Sustainable Telemedicine Task Force. 2008. http://bit.ly/1DWQzbg (Accessed April 2015).
24�Stevenson, A., Bardsley. M. (2012)The impact of telehealth on use of hospital care and mortality. A summary of the first findings from the Whole System Demonstrator trial. http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/files/nuffield/publication/120622_impact_of_telehealth_on_use_of_hospital_care_and_mortality.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
25�Kidholm, K., Stafylas, P., Kotzeva, K. (2014) REgioNs of Europe WorkINg together for HEALTH (RENEWING HEALTH). http://bit.ly/1EtZlwl (Accessed April 2015)
26�Ameen, J., Coll, A.M., Peters, M. Impact of tele-advice on community nurses’ knowledge of venous leg ulcer care. J Adv Nurs 2005; 50: 6, 583–594.
27�Assimacopoulos, A., Alam, R., Arbo, M. et al. A brief retrospective review of medical records comparing outcomes for inpatients treated via telehealth versus in-person protocols: is telehealth equally effective as in-person visits for treating neutropenic fever, bacterial pneumonia, and infected bacterial wounds? Telemed J E Health 2008; 14: 8, 762–768.
28�Baer, C.A., Williams, C.M., Vickers, L., Kvedar, J.C. A pilot study of specialized nursing care for home health patients. J Telemed Telecare 2004; 10: 6; 342–345.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3 7
29�Barrett, M., Larson, A., Carville, K., Ellis, I. Challenges faced in implementation of a telehealth enabled chronic wound care system. Rural Remote Health 2009; 9: 3, 1154.
30�Binder, B., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Salmhofer ,W. et al. Teledermatological monitoring of leg ulcers in cooperation with home care nurses. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 12, 1511–1154.
31�Brewster, L., Mountain, G., Wessels, B. et al. Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs 20014; 70: 1, 21–33.
32�Car, J., Black, A., Annandan, C. et al. (2008) The Impact of eHealth on Quality & Safety of Healthcare. A Systemic Overview & Synthesis of the Literature. University of Edinburgh and Imperial College London. http://bit.ly/1IXqYNc (Accessed April 2015).
33�Demiris, G., Speedie, S., Finkelstein, S., Harris, I. Communication patterns and technical quality of vir tual visits in home care. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9: 4, 210–215.
34�Dobke, M., Renkielska, A., De Neve, J., Chao, J., Bhavsar, D. Telemedicine for problematic wound management: enhancing communication between long-term care, skilled nursing, and home caregivers and a surgical wound specialist. Wounds 2006; 18: 9, 256–261.
35�Dobke, M.K., Bhavsar, D., Gosman, A. et al. Pilot trial of telemedicine as a decision aid for patients with chronic wounds. Telemed J E Health 2008; 14: 3, 245–249.
36�Dobke, M.K., Bhavsar, D., Herrera, F. Do telemedicine wound care specialist consults meet the needs of the referring physician? A survey of primary care providers. Int J Telemed Appl 2011; 2011: 321376.
37�Farook, S.A., Davis, A.K., Sadiq, Z. et al. A retrospective study of the influence of telemedicine in the management of pediatric facial lacerations. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29: 8, 912–915.
38�Finkelstein, S.M., Speedie, S.M., Demiris, G. et al. Telehomecare: quality, perception, satisfaction. Telemed J E Health 2004; 10: 2, 122–128.
39�Friesen, M.R., Hamel, C., McLeod, R.D. A mHealth application for chronic wound care: findings of a user trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10: 11, 6199–6214.
40�Gagnon, M.P., Breton, E., Courcy, F. et al. The influence of a wound care teleassistance service on nursing practice: a case study in Quebec. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20: 6, 593–600.
41�Halstead, L.S., Dang, T., Elrod, M. et al. Teleassessment compared with live assessment of pressure ulcers in a wound clinic: a pilot study. Adv Skin Wound Care 2003; 16: 2, 91–96.
42�Hammett, L., Harvath, T.A., Flaherty-Robb, M. et al. Remote wound care consultation for nursing homes: using a web-based assessment and care planning tool. J Gerontol Nurs 2007; 33: 11, 27–35; quiz 6–7.
43�Hazenberg, C.E., Bus, S.A., Kottink, AI., et al. Telemedical home-monitoring of diabetic foot disease using photographic foot imaging–a feasibility study. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 1, 32–36.
44�Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Salmhofer, W., Binder, B. et al. Feasibility and acceptance of telemedicine for wound care in patients with chronic leg ulcers. J Telemed Telecare 2006; 12 Suppl 1:15–17.
45�Johnston, B., Wheeler, L., Deuser, J., Sousa, K.H. Outcomes of the Kaiser Permanente Tele-Home Health Research Project. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1, 40–45.
46�Khalil, H., Cullen, M., Chambers, H. et al. Implementation of a successful electronic wound documentation system in rural Victoria, Australia: a subject of collaboration and community engagement. Int Wound J 2014; 11: 3, 314–318.
47�Kim, H.M. Lowery, J.C., Hamill, J.B., Wilkins, E.G. Patient attitudes toward a Web-based system for monitoring chronic wounds. Telemed J E Health 2004; 10 Suppl 2: S26–S34.
48�Kim, H.M., Lowery, J.C., Hamill, J.B., Wilkins, E.G. Accuracy of a web-based system for monitoring chronic wounds. Telemed J E Health 2003; 9: 2, 129–140.
49�Larsen, S.B., Clemensen, J., Ejskjaer, N. A feasibility study of UMTS mobile phones for supporting nurses doing home visits to patients with diabetic foot ulcers. J Telemed Telecare 2006; 12: 7, 358–362.
50�Mammas, C.S., Geropoulos, S., Markou, G. et al. Mobile tele-medicine systems in the multidisciplinary approach of diabetes management : the remote prevention of diabetes complications. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014; 202: 307–310.
51�Martínez-Ramos, C., Cerdán, M.T., López, R.S. Mobile phone-based telemedicine system for the home follow-up of patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Telemed J E Health 2009; 15: 6, 531–537.
52�Pirris, S.M., Monaco, E.A.3rd., Tyler-Kabara, E.C. Telemedicine through the use of digital cell phone technology in pediatric neurosurgery: a case series. Neurosurgery. 2010; 66: 5, 999–1004.
53�Quinn, E.M., Corrigan, M.A., O’Mullane, J. et al. Clinical unity and community empowerment: the use of smartphone technology to empower community management of chronic venous ulcers through the support of a tertiary unit. PloS One. 2013; 8: 11, e78786.
54�Ratliff, C.R., Forch, W. Telehealth for wound management in long-term care. Ostomy Wound Manage 2005; 51: 9, 40–45.
55�Rintala, D.H., Krouskop, T.A., Wright, J.V. et al. Telerehabilitation for veterans with a lower-limb amputation or ulcer : Technical acceptability of data. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41: 3B, 481–490.
56�Salmhofer, W., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Gabler, G. et al. Wound teleconsultation in patients with chronic leg ulcers. Dermatology 2005; 210: 3, 211–217.
S 3 8 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
57�Santamaria, N., Carville, K., Ellis, I,. Prentice, J. The effectiveness of digital imaging and remote expert wound consultation on healing rates in chronic lower leg ulcers in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Primary Intention 2004; 12: 2, 62–70.
58�Terry, M., Halstead, L.S,, O’Hare, P. et al. Feasibility study of home care wound management using telemedicine. Adv Skin Wound Care 2009; 22: 8, 358–364.
59�Vowden, K., Vowden, P. A pilot study on the potential of remote support to enhance wound care for nursing-home patients. J Wound Care 2013; 22: 9, 481–488.
60�Wilbright, W.A., Birke, J.A., Patout, C.A. et al. The use of telemedicine in the management of diabetes-related foot ulceration: a pilot study. Adv Skin Wound Care 2004; 17: 5 Pt 1, 232–238.
61�Wilkins, E.G., Lowery, J.C., Goldfarb, S. Feasibility of vir tual wound care: a pilot study. Adv Skin Wound Care 2007; 20: 5, 275–278.
62�The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2014) Personal Wireless Device Use for Wound Care Consultation: A Review of Safety, Clinical Benefits and Guidelines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0071147/pdf/TOC.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
63�Whitten, P., Love, B. Patient and provider satisfaction with the use of telemedicine: overview and rationale for cautious enthusiasm. J Postgrad Med 2005; 51: 4, 294–300.
64�Williams, T.L., May, C.R., Esmail, A. Limitations of patient satisfaction studies in telehealthcare: a systematic review of the literature. Telemed J E Health 2001; 7: 4, 293–316.
65�Cartwright, M., Hirani, S.P., Rixon, L. et al. Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013; 346: f653.
66�Chanussot-Deprez, C., Contreras-Ruiz, J. Telemedicine in wound care: a review. Adv Skin Wound Care 2013; 26: 2, 78–82.
67�Chipps, J., Ramlall, S., Mars, M. A telepsychiatry model to support psychiatric outreach in the public sector in South Africa. Afr J Psychiatry (Johannesbg) 2012; 15: 4, 264–270.
68�Boissy, P., Corriveau, H., Michaud, F. et al. A qualitative study of in-home robotic telepresence for home care of community-living elderly subjects. J Telemed Telecare 2007; 13: 2, 79–84.
69�Bowling, F.L., Paterson, J, Ndip, A. Applying 21st century imaging technology to wound healing: an Avant-Gardist approach. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2013; 7: 5, 1190–1194.
70�Clegg, A., Brown, T., Engels, D. et al. Telemedicine in a rural community hospital for remote wound care consultations. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2011; 38: 3, 301–304.
71�Hodnett, E.D., Gates, S., Hofmeyr, G.J., Sakala, C. Continuous support for women during childbir th. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003: 3, CD003766.
72�Ellis, I. The clinical champion role in the development of a successful telehealth wound care project for remote Australia. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11: Suppl 2, S26–S28.
73�Hall, S., Murchie, P. Can we use technology to encourage self-monitoring by people treated for melanoma? A qualitative exploration of the perceptions of potential recipients. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22: 6, 1663–1671.
74�Meadows, G., Singh, B., Burgess, P., Bobevski, I. Psychiatry and the need for mental health care in Australia: findings from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2002; 36: 2, 210–216.
75�Hopman, W.M., Harrison, M.B., Coo, H. et al. Associations between chronic disease, age and physical and mental health status. Chronic Dis Can 2009; 29: 3, 108–116.
76�Kuijpers, W., Groen, W.G., Aaronson, N.K., van Harten, W.H. A systematic review of web-based interventions for patient empowerment and physical activity in chronic diseases: relevance for cancer survivors. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15: 2, e37.
77�Lorimer, K., McDaid, L. Young men’s views toward the barriers and facilitators of Internet-based Chlamydia trachomatis screening: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15: 12, e265.
78�Mair, F.S., May, C., O’Donnell, C. et al. Factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic review. Bull World Health Orga 2012; 90: 5, 357–364.
79�Minatodani, D.E., Chao, P.J., Berman, S.J. Home telehealth: facilitators, barriers, and impact of nurse support among high-risk dialysis patients. Telemed J E Health 2013; 19: 8, 573–378.
80�European Commission (2012) Report from the commission to the European parliment, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/com_2012_12_en.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
81�Official Journal of the European Communities (1995) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
82�MOMENTUM (European Momentum for Mainstreaming Telemedicine Deployment in Daily Practice) (2015) Personalised Blueprint for telemedicine deployment: validated and tested version. http://telemedicine-momentum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/D3.4_v1.0_ValidatedBlueprint.pdf (Accessed April 2015).
83�Mair, F.S., Hiscock, J., Beaton, S.C. Understanding factors that inhibit or promote the utilization of telecare in chronic lung disease. Chronic Illn 2008; 4: 2, 110–117.
84�Hibbert, D., Mair, F.S., May, C.R. et al. Health professionals’ responses to the introduction of a home telehealth service. J Telemed Telecare 2004; 10: 4, 226–230.
85�Hibbert, D., Mair, F.S., Angus, R.M. et al. Lessons from the implementation of a home telecare service. J Telemed Telecare 2003; 9 Suppl 1, S55-S56.
86�Taylor, J., Coates, E., Brewster, L. et al. Examining the use of telehealth in community nursing: identifying the factors affecting frontline staff acceptance and telehealth adoption. J Adv Nurs 2015; 71: 2, 326–337.
87�Yellowlees, P.M. Successfully developing a telemedicine system. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11: 7, 331–335.
88�MacKenzie, E., Smith, A., Angus, N. et al. Mixed-method exploratory study of general practitioner and nurse perceptions of a new community based nurse-led heart failure service. Rural Remote Health 2010; 10: 4, 1510.
89�Wade, V., Eliott, J. The role of the champion in telehealth service
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 3 9
development: a qualitative analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 8, 490–492.
90�Brebner, J.A., Brebner, E.M., Ruddick-Bracken, H., Wootton, R. The development of a pilot telemedicine network in Scotland: lessons learned. J Telemed Telecare 2001; 7 Suppl: 2, 83–84.
91�Hendy, J., Barlow, J. The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74: 3, 348–355.
92�Australian Wound Managment Association (2013) Australian Wound Management Association Telehealth Framework Document. http://www.awma.com.au/publications/#telehealth(Accessed April 2015).
93�Bahaadinbeigy, K., Yogesan, K., Wootton, R. A survey of the state of telemedicine in Western Australia. J Telemed Telecare 2010; 16: 4, 176–180.
94�Moffatt, J.J., Eley, D.S. The reported benefits of telehealth for rural Australians. Aust Health Rev 2010; 34: 3, 276–281.
95�Krupinski, E.A. Telemedicine consultations: failed cases and floundering specialties. J Telemed Telecare 2004; 10 Suppl 1: 67–69.
96�May, C., Harrison, R., Finch, T. et al. Understanding the normalization of telemedicine services through qualitative evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10: 6, 596–604.
97�Benavides-Vaello, S., Strode, A., Sheeran, B.C. Using technology in the delivery of mental health and substance abuse treatment in rural communities: a review. J Behav Health Serv Res 2013; 40: 1, 111–120.
98�Bridewell, W., Das, A.K. Social network analysis of physician interactions: the effect of institutional boundaries on breast cancer care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 152–160.
99�Danvers, L., Freshwater, D., Cheater, F., Wilson, A. Providing a seamless service for children with life-limiting illness: experiences and recommendations of professional staff at the Diana Princess of Wales Children’s Community Service. J Clin Nurs 2003; 12: 3, 351–359.
100�Bahaadini, K., Yogesan, K., Wootton, R. Health staff priorities for the future development of telehealth in Western Australia. Rural Remote Health 2009; 9: 3,1164.
101�Dallery, J., Cassidy, R.N., Raiff, B.R. Single-case experimental designs to evaluate novel technology-based health interventions. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15: 2, e22.
102�Gellis, Z.D., Kenaley, B., McGinty, J. et al. Outcomes of a telehealth intervention for homebound older adults with heart or chronic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontologist 2012; 52: 4, 541–552.
103�Mistry, H. Systematic review of studies of the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine and telecare. Changes in the economic evidence over twenty years. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 1, 1–6.
104�Moore, Z.B., Corbett, G., McGuiness, L.Q. et al. Exploring the concept of a team approach to wound care: Managing wounds as a team. J Wound Care 2014; 23: Suppl 5b, S1–S38.
S 4 0 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Appendix 1: literature review – search strategy and literature overview
Search methods for identification of studiesAll searches were conducted on 1 September 2014.
The review considered only English language
publications. Relevant Journal literature were
identified by use of: The Cochrane Library,
MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE. Table 4 outlines the
search terms employed.
Search strategiesMEDLINE search strategy: The search strategy uses
MeSH terms
A, AND B, AND C (narrowed by set of terms to
retrieve trials between 2000 and 2014).
CINAHL search strategy: The strategy uses CINAHL
thesaurus terms
A, AND B, AND C AND (narrowed by set of terms
to retrieve trials between 2000 and 2014.)
Data collection results and analysisThe articles were reviewed blindly by two reviewers
and selected on the basis of the defined inclusion
and exclusion criteria.
After title screening all relevant articles were
imported to endnote X7.1 (210 articles). These
studies were reviewed using the criteria for the
review set out in the method section of this
article.
All relevant articles were defined with regards
to format, intervention and aim/outcome, and
evaluated for inclusion of the MAST domains.
If a study reported outcomes in more than one
outcome or domain, the article was presented in all
of the relevant domains.
J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5 S 4 1
Table�4.�sample�sizes�and�total�numbers�involved�in�all�studies.
Set A terms: (Combined by OR): Set B terms: (Combined by OR): Set C terms: (Combined by NOT (limit)):
Telemedicine (and text word variations) Wound (and text word variations) Radiology (and text word variations)
eHealth (and text word variations) Ulcer (and text word variations) Burn (and text word variations)
Mobile health (and text word variations) Diabetic foot ulcer (and text word variations)
Emergency (and text word variations)
Health, mobile (and text word variations) Leg ulcer (and text word variations)
Pressure ulcer (and text word variations)
S 4 2 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
Notes
S 4 4 � J O U R N A L � O F �WO U N D � C A R E � � VO L 2 4 N O 5 E W M A D O C U M E N T 2 0 1 5
The European Wound Management Association (EWMA)EWMA is a European umbrella organisation, linking
wound management organisations, individuals and
groups with interest in wound care.
EWMA works continuously to improve European
wound patients’ quality of life. We pursue
identifying and advocating the highest quality
of treatment available and its cost effectiveness
from a multidisciplinary point of view. We work
to reach our objectives by being an educational
resource, contributing to international projects,
organising conferences, and actively supporting
the implementation of existing knowledge.
Thus, EWMA strives to be the organisation that
citizens, patients, professionals, Governments,
Health Services and educational institutes come
to for advice about and expertise in wound
management in Europe.
www.ewma.org
The Australian Wound Management Association (AWMA)AWMA is a multidisciplinary, non-profit
association consisting of people who are
committed to developing and improving wound
management for all individuals through education,
research, communication and networks.
The Association acts as a parent body to the
autonomous State/Territory wound management
associations in New South Wales, Queensland,
South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Australian
Capital Territory and Western Australia. There are
approximately 3,000 members from the disciplines
of nursing, medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, industry
and the sciences.
www.awma.com.au
The United4Health Project This document is published in connection with
the United4Health project. EWMA’s role in the
United4Health consortium is to support the
engagement of health-care professionals in the
development and deployment of eHealth services.
The core ambition of United4Health is to share the
understanding that in order for eHealth solutions to
work it is essential that health-care providers adopt
innovative health and care service models.
United4Health’s philosophy is that eHealth solutions
provide value for citizens, health-care providers
and payers by improving access to services (locally
or in the home), reducing costs (reduced home
visits, fewer emergency admissions to hospital), and
increasing quality; more personalised tailored care
with easier involvement of family and carers.
United4Health is partially funded under the ICT
Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme
by the European Commission.
www.united4health.eu